From: Eric Hayes Patkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Irish Times on Afghanistan 17 Oct 01 - Pakistan, US agree on future Afghan regime - Editorial: Afghanistan After The Taliban - Analysis: Afghans the victims of US terrorism ----------------------------------------------- (Poster's note: What, so now the US IS engaged in state-building? And why is it up to Pakistan and the US to decide what happens in Afghanistan post-Taliban, given they had a large-enough role pre-Taliban?) Pakistan, US agree on future Afghan regime By Deaglán de Bréadún, Foreign Affairs Correspondent, and Patrick Smyth, in Washtington The US has agreed a joint approach with Pakistan on the formation of a future Afghan government. Talks took place while some 60 US jets were attacking Taliban troops and equipment on the 10th day of the air strikes. However there was a propaganda setback for the US when two of its missiles hit a warehouse operated by the International Committee of the Red Cross in downtown Kabul. Rescue workers tried to put out the ensuing blaze, but at least 35 per cent of the food and other supplies were destroyed. Fears of anthrax poisoning were rife in the US. A seven-month-old boy, the son of a television employee, became the latest victim but the World Health Organisation said people should be vigilant but must not panic. In Afghanistan, the use for the first time by the US of the low-flying, slow-moving A-130 gunship reflected total domination of Afghan airspace and a new emphasis on direct attacks on troop concentrations. Although the A-130 has been associated with Special Forces contingents, its use does not necessarily mean that ground troops will be involved in large numbers soon. In Islamabad the US Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell agreed with Pakistan's military ruler, Gen Pervez Musharraf, that the opposition Northern Alliance and the 87-year-old ex-King Zahir Shah would play roles in a future Afghan government. Gen Musharraf also held out a role for moderates in the Taliban. Before flying on to India, Mr Powell told a joint press conference with Gen Musharraf: "There is no doubt that we both have a common goal, to see that the Afghan government is one that will represent all the people of Afghanistan and a regime that obviously will be friendly to all its neighbours, including Pakistan." Gen Musharraf said they had agreed that a durable peace in Pakistan's western neighbour would be possible only through a "broad-based, multi-ethnic government" set up without outside interference. Mr Powell said all components of ethnically and linguistically diverse Afghanistan must join talks on the country's future, including the opposition Northern Alliance and "southern tribal leaders". This was an apparent reference to the majority Pashtun -- the ethnic group currently represented by the Taliban -- to which many Pakistanis also belong. Gen Musharraf said moderate elements of the Taliban militia could also be involved. "Extremism is not in every Taliban," Gen Musharraf said. "I wouldn't like to get into the details of who are moderates but we know for sure there are many moderates in the Taliban." Pakistani officials told the New York Times that in secret talks a senior Taliban leader had appealed for a bombing pause while moderates in the Taliban government sought to persuade the supreme leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, to agree to a formula for the hand over of the Saudi militant and suspected terror mastermind, Osama bin Laden. A Taliban spokesman said raids on Monday night killed 33 civilians in Kabul, nine near Kandahar and 19 in two outlying villages close to Taliban bases. Earlier, the US Defence Secretary, Mr Donald Rumsfeld, denounced the regime as "accomplished liars". The UN Secretary-General, Mr Kofi Annan, said that US and the Taliban should take greater care to reduce civilian casualties in the escalating conflict. Mr Annan's special representative for Afghanistan, Mr Lakhdar Brahimi, and his personal representative in the country, Mr Francesc Vendrell, were in New York for meetings at UN headquarters. In Geneva, UN agencies said funding for the international aid effort for Afghanistan was not flowing despite the humanitarian emergency. --- Editorial: Afghanistan After The Taliban Time marches on in the United States's military assault on Afghanistan, as its objectives come under closer scrutiny. Yesterday's use of low-flying turboprop gunships against targets in Kandahar herald the use of special forces inside Afghan territory. The US Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell, assured Pakistani leaders their interests will be taken into account in any post-Taliban government. Panic reaction to the finding of more Anthrax spread from the United States to several other countries. There is only a short time available for decisive breakthroughs to be made before winter sets in and for humanitarian supplies to be transported to millions of displaced and hungry people. Civilian casualties increase by the day. Mr Powell has a tricky task indeed in Islamabad and New Delhi as he seeks to reassure Pakistan and India that their interests will be respected by the US-led coalition. His trip underlines the impression that a great effort is being made to construct a post-Taliban government in Afghanistan which would hold together its extremely diverse ethnic, regional and political components. This has involved the United Nations and would seek to ensure that if the regime collapses a viable alternative government will be available to fill the vacuum. Assembling that alternative has affected the military strategy. The use of gunships yesterday could signal a bombing campaign against the Taliban frontline facing the Northern Alliance troops north of Kabul. That would be a coherent strategy. Rather than pitching thousands of US combat troops into an uncertain and unknown terrain, it would rely on internal Afghan forces to topple the Taliban regime. Under the umbrella of a successor regime it would be much easier to pursue those accused of the atrocities in New York and Washington and to provide effective humanitarian aid the millions of people. All would depend, of course, on holding such a successor together; given the rooted hostility between the Northern Alliance forces and Pakistan that would be difficult indeed. It is also clear that such an outcome should happen within the next few weeks if potential military and humanitarian catastrophes are to be avoided. The dangers of escalating conflict elsewhere was vividly underlined by the latest clashes between Pakistan and India over Kashmir. Until the last few weeks Pakistan's military regime was quite out of favour with Washington because of its nuclear confrontation with India. India's shelling of Pakistani targets during Mr Powell's visit shows how volatile feelings have become between the two states. Their cooperation is essential if the Kashmir dispute is to be resolved. The proliferation of Anthrax infections and scares mirrors that volatility in the United States. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Analysis: Afghans the victims of US terrorism All the news bulletins and news channels nowadays have "anchormen" or "experts" parading in front of huge maps of Afghanistan, explaining the detail of the military assault on the country. We are told of the type of bomber used and from what base, the aircraft carriers from where the tomahawk missiles are fired. Sometimes we are told of the "payload delivered". And not a hint of the devastation these "payloads" deliver to the people of Afghanistan. The awful terror they bring, the devastation, the injury, the slaughter. We have become morally desensitised to the abominations that are clinically conveyed to us night after night on our television screens. Nobody at any of the news conferences challenges George Bush or Tony Blair or Donald Rumsfeld or Colin Powell about the outrages they are perpetrating. We are all part of the consensus that it is OK to bomb a country to a pulp with the vastness of the military might the world has ever known. Nobody asks Tony Blair about the "human rights of the suffering women of Afghanistan" that he talked about in that speech at the Labour Party conference two weeks ago. How did the world get to believe that terror and slaughter delivered by a bomb in a car was an atrocity, while much more terror and much more slaughter delivered by airplane or missile is morally OK? Remember all the talk some years ago about the godfathers of violence who sat in their comfortable, middle-class homes in Dundalk or Buncrana, while their cowardly minions delivered mayhem to the streets of Belfast or Derry or Claudy or Omagh? What about the godfathers of violence sitting in their stately mansions in the White House or Downing Street or Chequers or Camp David, and their minions dropping far larger bombs from the security of thousands of feet beyond range of retaliation, causing far more mayhem in the homes and streets of Kabul, Kandahar, and Jalalabad? And all for what? Is it believable that the attack on America of September 11th could have been planned, directed and co-ordinated from caves in Afghanistan? Or that the organisation that was responsible for that attack originates in Afghanistan? A great deal of the emerging evidence suggests otherwise. Last Wednesday the New York Times published a lengthy portrait of one of the organisers and perpetrators of the September 11th attack, Mohammed Atta. Atta came from a middle-class family in Cairo, where his father was a lawyer. He went to Hamburg for several years to get a degree in urban planning and he later worked there. "Officials" were quoted as saying there was "strong evidence" Atta had trained in terrorist camps in Afghanistan in the late 1990s, but we are not told what that evidence is or what it is he could have been trained in that would have had any relevance to what happened on September 11th. It is clear, however, that his radicalism emerged while he was in Hamburg, where he associated with people from the Turkish, Arab and African communities. He went to Florida in 2000 and trained as an airline pilot. There is evidence that he received a large sum of money from someone in The United Arab Emirates, who "may" have had an association with Osama bin Laden. A report in Monday's Los Angeles Times quoted FBI sources as saying there were several people involved in plotting further attacks on the US and they were "at large in the United States and across Europe and the Middle East". The Los Angeles Times also reported that several people suspected of involvement either in the September 11th attack or in planning further attacks were from Saudi Arabia and were resident either there or in the US. CBS News on Monday evening quoted Prof Vali Nasr of the University of San Diego as saying the Saudi government had "appeased" Islamic extremists by funding and promoting a radical form of Islam that sees the US as the enemy. Other reports from the US suggest that the real source of terrorism is Iran, where there are several persons wanted by the US, and, of course, Iraq remains a major suspect as a terrorist sponsor. So what is the point of the assault on Afghanistan? Yes, Osama bin laden and some of his associates are there, but if the vast bulk of those suspected of terrorism by the US are either in the US itself or in Hamburg or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Iraq, what good will it do if everyone in Afghanistan is obliterated? How will it reduce the terrorist threat to US if the vast majority of terrorists are in places other than Afghanistan? If the anthrax attacks are the work of terrorists, does anyone believe that the packages containing it were sent from Afghanistan? And just one other thing. If the point of the assault on Afghanistan is not to defeat terrorism but get Osama bin Laden and bring him to "justice", why has the latest offer by the Taliban to send him to an agreed third country been dismissed? What would it matter if he were taken to one of America's allies such as Egypt or even Pakistan or Turkey and "brought to justice" there? The reality is that Afghanistan is being devastated and hundreds are being slaughtered, on the net issue of bringing bin Laden and his associates to justice in the US rather than to some other third agreed country. That's what the slaughter is about. And that's putting it at its best. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Eric Hayes Patkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://irsm.org/ (Pairtí Poblachtach Sóisialach na h-Éireann) http://www14.pair.com/jcs/ (James Connolly Society) http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/ (James Connolly Archive) http://irsm.org/turkey/ (Solidarity with Turkish Hunger Strikers)
